IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i5-6p794-801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dignity in care in the hospital setting from patients’ perspectives in Taiwan: a descriptive qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Yea‐Pyng Lin
  • Yun‐Fang Tsai
  • Hsiu‐Fang Chen

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this study was to explore dignity in care from patients’ perspectives in Taiwan. Background. Dignity is a core element of nursing care. In nurses’ clinical practice, maintaining the dignity of patients is an important issue because a lack of dignity in care can affect the health and recovery of patients. In Western countries, patient dignity has been well researched, but only one study has examined this topic in an Asian country. Design. Descriptive qualitative methods were used in this study. Methods. Interviews were conducted with 40 patients purposively sampled at a teaching hospital in eastern Taiwan from May–August 2009. Audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data in transcripts were coded and analysed by content analysis. Results. The major findings revealed that many hospitalised patients were satisfied with the maintenance of their dignity. Six themes that contribute to the preservation of their dignity were identified: sense of control and autonomy, being respected as a person, avoidance of body exposure, caring from the nursing staff, confidentiality of disease information and prompt response to needs. Conclusions. The findings can help nurses better understand dignity in care because it is described from the patient viewpoint. Relevance to clinical practice. By identifying the most important factors from patients’ perspectives that contribute to dignity, nursing interventions in clinical practice can be further developed and improved.

Suggested Citation

  • Yea‐Pyng Lin & Yun‐Fang Tsai & Hsiu‐Fang Chen, 2011. "Dignity in care in the hospital setting from patients’ perspectives in Taiwan: a descriptive qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5‐6), pages 794-801, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:794-801
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03499.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03499.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03499.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marcelle Tauber‐Gilmore & Gulen Addis & Zainab Zahran & Sally Black & Lesley Baillie & Sue Procter & Christine Norton, 2018. "The views of older people and health professionals about dignity in acute hospital care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 223-234, January.
    2. Mien Li Goh & Emily N. K. Ang & Yiong-Huak Chan & Hong-Gu He & Katri Vehviläinen-Julkunen, 2018. "Patient Satisfaction Is Linked to Nursing Workload in a Singapore Hospital," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 692-713, July.
    3. Nurfika Asmaningrum & Dini Kurniawati & Yun‐Fang Tsai, 2020. "Threats to patient dignity in clinical care settings: A qualitative comparison of Indonesian nurses and patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 899-908, March.
    4. Annamaria Bagnasco & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Carolina Galanti & Gloria Varone & Gianluca Catania & Milko Zanini & Giuseppe Aleo & Roger Watson & Mark Hayter & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Unmet nursing care needs on medical and surgical wards: A scoping review of patients’ perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3-4), pages 347-369, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:794-801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.